Hurt Walmart, or Help The Poor?

[Rshermr]

I never said that.

However, by keeping our minimum wage at pathetically depressed levels, it doesn’t improve employment prospects in the least. As a matter of fact, it makes it matters worse, since it takes demand out of the economy and lowers the prospects of someone on unemployment benefits or other types of assistance from reentering the workforce.

Because you don't grasp Keynes, you are prone to absurdity. I understand, you read Krugman and think that you have a grasp of Keynes - but Krugman is a fraud who employs gobbledy-gook as his primary.

I demand an airship to replace the truck I drive. I want it to use no fuel and be fast and safe. So where is my airship? I demanded it? Millions have a demand for this kind of transportation, so where is it?

Aggregate demand does not, and cannot drive production. It may influence production goals, but will not and cannot drive production. Keynes understood this, you don't. You remain convinced of some fairy tale divide between "supply side" and "demand side." One problem, "demand side" simply doesn't exist.

Your above claim is particularly stupid and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of markets. I'm going to clue you in on something, ready? Repeat after me; "Labor is a commodity." Labor is a component of cost. As the skill of the laborer declines, the availability increases, as availability increases, value decreases. Yet you assert that by inflating cost without adding value, you will somehow increase the prospect of laborers.

Wages are source of demand and an input cost. For example, if we reduce wages and demand falls, it has more of a negative impact than any cost savings derived from paying workers less wages. If we look at today’s pathetic minimum wage, it’s not even in the universe of what could be deemed a living wage. Just sayin’…

So, if wages fall, then people will no longer demand food, shelter, energy, iPhones...

Are you sure you've thought this through?

And MORE proof that cons have no concept of the meaning of economic demand. Jesus, that was a stupid post. Jesus. I mean really, really stupid. Another conservative post that proves that this clown is incapable of actual ability to have a discussion. Totally iincapable. Jesus.

For instance, you are trying to argue keynsian theory without the slightest idea of what stimulating economic demand means. You just made a statement that shows how ignorant you actually are. And made an attack on a person who actually has a very solid economic background.
All of which just makes my ongoing point. As soon as you see someone lead with personal attacks, you know that person has no ability to discuss economic concepts. You said:

Aggregate demand does not, and cannot drive production. It may influence production goals, but will not and cannot drive production. Keynes understood this, you don't. You remain convinced of some fairy tale divide between "supply side" and "demand side." One problem, "demand side" simply doesn't exist.

So, your concept is that if there is an increase in incomes of individuals, who would like to buy what they could not previously afford, that producers will refuse their money. Jesus, you are stupid. And you may want to try the google, dipshit. Put in demand side economics and see what pops up. Jesus you are stupid.

"Demand Side Economics - A school of economic thought founded by the UK economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) and developed by his followers. Its main assertion is that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy."
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/demand-side-economics.html#ixzz2Z8kMWzK6

I am sure you will be admitting your mistake. We are all holding our breath. Jesus, and you had the balls to suggest that someone else did not understand keynsian economics. Did you work at getting that stupid, or were you born that way????

 

[Uncensored2008]

And MORE proof that cons have no concept of the meaning of economic demand. Jesus, that was a stupid post. Jesus. I mean really, really stupid. Another conservative post that proves that this clown is incapable of actual ability to have a discussion. Totally iincapable. Jesus.

You're an angry little troll, not particularly bright, but astoundingly angry.

For instance, you are trying to argue keynsian theory without the slightest idea of what stimulating economic demand means.

No one spoke of stimulating aggregate demand, moron. Yes, Keynes focused heavily on altering the business cycle through stimulus, particularly driven by deficit spending. However, where you of the left jump the shark is in your thinking demand can expand an economy, which it cannot.

Key concept for you; Keynes believed that increasing aggregate demand through short-term deficit spending could stimulate an economy to shorten periods of recession, essentially priming pump. This is not the belief (Keynes was actually competent) that demand can drive an economy.

Now run along junior, you bore me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Henry Ford must be anathema to Righties in that he did something that industrialist titans of his time didn't do: he paid his workers more than the going rate so that they could hope to buy one of the cars they manufactured some day which they did. Walmart? Not so much.

BTW- ever seen this source PoliChic?

Top Reasons the Walton Family and Walmart are NOT “Job Creators”

You, as employer, get to offer to pay what you wish.....

....and you, as employee get to decline any offer you find unacceptable.

For the sake of argument, PC, let's take a look at DC's facts about what Henry Ford paid his workers. If we apply the Walmart business model universally to every single corporation and job in America everyone except the 1% will earn minimum wage. All profits will go to the wealthy and hardworking Americans will just have to struggle as best they can on a mere pittance that is barely enough to buy food and pay the rent.

Granted this is a reductio ad absurdum example but it illustrates DC's point nicely. If only the wealthy have disposable income you end up with something barely above feudalism. Your economy tanks because consumers are focused on necessities only. That is the one extreme. The other is where everyone has an equal income and that is equally absurd.

Back in Henry Ford's day only the wealthy could afford his cars. But he did the math and figured out that if he paid his workers enough to buy his cars he would generate a self sustaining economic system that would make him very wealthy. The Walmart family decided that if they paid everyone as little as possible they could become very wealthy at the expense of their employees and other taxpayers by leaching off the economic model that Henry Ford pioneered.

So since the Walmart business model is parasitic how long can the American economy survive if every corporation adopts the same business model in order to remain competitive?

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the sake of argument, PC, let's take a look at DC's facts about what Henry Ford paid his workers. If we apply the Walmart business model universally to every single corporation and job in America everyone except the 1% will earn minimum wage. All profits will go to the wealthy and hardworking Americans will just have to struggle as best they can on a mere pittance that is barely enough to buy food and pay the rent.

Do you honestly believe any of the crap you repost from ThinkProgress?

So, the manager of the Super WalMart down the street makes minimum wage?



Damn, the things you learn from leftists..

 

[Derideo_Te]

For the sake of argument, PC, let's take a look at DC's facts about what Henry Ford paid his workers. If we apply the Walmart business model universally to every single corporation and job in America everyone except the 1% will earn minimum wage. All profits will go to the wealthy and hardworking Americans will just have to struggle as best they can on a mere pittance that is barely enough to buy food and pay the rent.

Do you honestly believe any of the crap you repost from ThinkProgress?

So, the manager of the Super WalMart down the street makes minimum wage?



Damn, the things you learn from leftists..

Which part of this expression "For the sake of argument" would you like to have explained to you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which part of this expression "For the sake of argument" would you like to have explained to you?

Perhaps you should have written "for the sake of demagoguery?"

Fact, Store managers of the large mega-stores pull down about a quarter million a year. Their lieutenants (GM's) pull down solid 6-figure salaries, the departmental managers under them are pulling 60K plus, lead associates get $20 an hour or more.

Oh, and Walmart STARTS above minimum wage - with profit sharing and dozens of other benefits.

This whole thing is nothing but the greedy unions trying to force their way in.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Which part of this expression "For the sake of argument" would you like to have explained to you?

Perhaps you should have written "for the sake of demagoguery?"

Fact, Store managers of the large mega-stores pull down about a quarter million a year. Their lieutenants (GM's) pull down solid 6-figure salaries, the departmental managers under them are pulling 60K plus, lead associates get $20 an hour or more.

Oh, and Walmart STARTS above minimum wage - with profit sharing and dozens of other benefits.

This whole thing is nothing but the greedy unions trying to force their way in.

None of which even comes close to refuting the point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Henry Ford must be anathema to Righties in that he did something that industrialist titans of his time didn't do: he paid his workers more than the going rate so that they could hope to buy one of the cars they manufactured some day which they did. Walmart? Not so much.

BTW- ever seen this source PoliChic?

Top Reasons the Walton Family and Walmart are NOT “Job Creators”

You, as employer, get to offer to pay what you wish.....

....and you, as employee get to decline any offer you find unacceptable.

For the sake of argument, PC, let's take a look at DC's facts about what Henry Ford paid his workers. If we apply the Walmart business model universally to every single corporation and job in America everyone except the 1% will earn minimum wage. All profits will go to the wealthy and hardworking Americans will just have to struggle as best they can on a mere pittance that is barely enough to buy food and pay the rent.

Granted this is a reductio ad absurdum example but it illustrates DC's point nicely. If only the wealthy have disposable income you end up with something barely above feudalism. Your economy tanks because consumers are focused on necessities only. That is the one extreme. The other is where everyone has an equal income and that is equally absurd.

Back in Henry Ford's day only the wealthy could afford his cars. But he did the math and figured out that if he paid his workers enough to buy his cars he would generate a self sustaining economic system that would make him very wealthy. The Walmart family decided that if they paid everyone as little as possible they could become very wealthy at the expense of their employees and other taxpayers by leaching off the economic model that Henry Ford pioneered.

So since the Walmart business model is parasitic how long can the American economy survive if every corporation adopts the same business model in order to remain competitive?

Here's your post....but in a more entertaining form:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9PwWq3le9A]Sminky Shorts: I Can't Do It - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

None of which even comes close to refuting the point.

Gee, if the top 1% get all the money and everyone else makes minimum wage the economy would suffer.

How profound.

Your point was akin to "If birds had gills then fish would be easy prey."

You based your scenario on a fiction with no relation to reality - thus it has no bearing on anything.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You, as employer, get to offer to pay what you wish.....

....and you, as employee get to decline any offer you find unacceptable.

For the sake of argument, PC, let's take a look at DC's facts about what Henry Ford paid his workers. If we apply the Walmart business model universally to every single corporation and job in America everyone except the 1% will earn minimum wage. All profits will go to the wealthy and hardworking Americans will just have to struggle as best they can on a mere pittance that is barely enough to buy food and pay the rent.

Granted this is a reductio ad absurdum example but it illustrates DC's point nicely. If only the wealthy have disposable income you end up with something barely above feudalism. Your economy tanks because consumers are focused on necessities only. That is the one extreme. The other is where everyone has an equal income and that is equally absurd.

Back in Henry Ford's day only the wealthy could afford his cars. But he did the math and figured out that if he paid his workers enough to buy his cars he would generate a self sustaining economic system that would make him very wealthy. The Walmart family decided that if they paid everyone as little as possible they could become very wealthy at the expense of their employees and other taxpayers by leaching off the economic model that Henry Ford pioneered.

So since the Walmart business model is parasitic how long can the American economy survive if every corporation adopts the same business model in order to remain competitive?

Here's your post....but in a more entertaining form:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9PwWq3le9A]Sminky Shorts: I Can't Do It - YouTube[/ame]

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot refute my point, PC.

 

[Derideo_Te]

None of which even comes close to refuting the point.

Gee, if the top 1% get all the money and everyone else makes minimum wage the economy would suffer.

How profound.

Your point was akin to "If birds had gills then fish would be easy prey."

You based your scenario on a fiction with no relation to reality - thus it has no bearing on anything.

That reality exists in 3rd world nations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For the sake of argument, PC, let's take a look at DC's facts about what Henry Ford paid his workers. If we apply the Walmart business model universally to every single corporation and job in America everyone except the 1% will earn minimum wage. All profits will go to the wealthy and hardworking Americans will just have to struggle as best they can on a mere pittance that is barely enough to buy food and pay the rent.

Granted this is a reductio ad absurdum example but it illustrates DC's point nicely. If only the wealthy have disposable income you end up with something barely above feudalism. Your economy tanks because consumers are focused on necessities only. That is the one extreme. The other is where everyone has an equal income and that is equally absurd.

Back in Henry Ford's day only the wealthy could afford his cars. But he did the math and figured out that if he paid his workers enough to buy his cars he would generate a self sustaining economic system that would make him very wealthy. The Walmart family decided that if they paid everyone as little as possible they could become very wealthy at the expense of their employees and other taxpayers by leaching off the economic model that Henry Ford pioneered.

So since the Walmart business model is parasitic how long can the American economy survive if every corporation adopts the same business model in order to remain competitive?

Here's your post....but in a more entertaining form:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9PwWq3le9A]Sminky Shorts: I Can't Do It - YouTube[/ame]

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you cannot refute my point, PC.

Not I......a milliner is needed to encompass your point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That reality exists in 3rd world nations.

Most of which are socialist, authoritarian kleptocracies - precisely what the Obamunists seek/ are in the process, of instilling here....

 

[Kimura]

Because you don't grasp Keynes, you are prone to absurdity. I understand, you read Krugman and think that you have a grasp of Keynes - but Krugman is a fraud who employs gobbledy-gook as his primary.

I understand Keynes - and economics - more than you ever will. I have an education. You regurgitate taking points.

I demand an airship to replace the truck I drive. I want it to use no fuel and be fast and safe. So where is my airship? I demanded it? Millions have a demand for this kind of transportation, so where is it?

Aggregate demand does not, and cannot drive production. It may influence production goals, but will not and cannot drive production. Keynes understood this, you don't. You remain convinced of some fairy tale divide between "supply side" and "demand side." One problem, "demand side" simply doesn't exist.

This is why I can't take you seriously. Do you even understand what aggregate demand means? Listen to yourself, genius. Aggregate demand is the total amount of goods and services in the economy, driven by demand, within a given time period.

Your above claim is particularly stupid and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of markets. I'm going to clue you in on something, ready? Repeat after me; "Labor is a commodity." Labor is a component of cost. As the skill of the laborer declines, the availability increases, as availability increases, value decreases. Yet you assert that by inflating cost without adding value, you will somehow increase the prospect of laborers.

So labor isn't an input cost for firms? Oh really... Total labor costs, which include benefits, have been declining since 1961. If you're trying to assert that labor costs are a driver of inflation, you're more clueless than I originally suspected.

We take the Unit Labor Cost in the Non-Farm Business, then we multiply it by actual output to obtain Total Labor Comp. We then divide by GDP to compare Total Labor Comp to the size of the overall economy.

Here, let me help you some more:

Unit Labor Cost Business - Definition

So, if wages fall, then people will no longer demand food, shelter, energy, iPhones...

Are you sure you've thought this through?

Up until the early 1980s, labor productivity and real wages moved in unison. As the attacks on workers increased (attacks on their ability to obtain wages increases), a gap opened up between real wages and productivity. This increased gap resulted in increasing profit share.

The result of increasing unemployment and real wage cuts are declining wealth and declining sales at firms. The slows consumption and investment, which isn't a good thing.

We live in a market economy where people exchange money for real goods and services. The makes the public the actual job creators, not business or small businesses, etc. This means consumption is what drives our economy. So yeah, if wages fall, it will result in falling demand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I understand Keynes - and economics - more than you ever will. I have an education. You regurgitate taking points.

ROFL

Sure sparky.

This is why I can't take you seriously. Do you even understand what aggregate demand means? Listen to yourself, genius. Aggregate demand is the total amount of goods and services in the economy, driven by demand, within a given time period.

And there goes the fiction that you understand macroeconomics...

Aggregate demand is the total demand for goods and services, you have confused it with gross domestic product, but you are at least in the ballpark. You then attempt a round robin of clumsily asserting that all goods and services are demand and that this is driven by demand.

Here is a game that I play with my students;

Does the iPhone exist?

Why does it exist? In the misapplication of Keynesian theory that makes up the myth of demand side economics, the iPhone cannot exist. Why? Because there was no demand for a smart phone - none at all. In fact, the demand for smart phones was created 100% by the supply of the iPhone. Don't believe me? Go ask Hewlett-Packard, who had a smart phone (the iPaq) they couldn't give away.

Demand does not, and cannot drive an economy. Jean Baptiste Say best summed it up in Says law, "Supply gives rise to it's own demand."

Labor is a component of cost.

So labor isn't an input cost for firms? Oh really... Total labor costs, which include benefits, have been declining since 1961. If you're trying to assert that labor costs are a driver of inflation, you're more clueless than I originally suspected.

Are you on drugs?

Or are you just so desperate to redeem yourself that you fly off to wild prevarication?

 

[Kimura]

And there goes the fiction that you understand macroeconomics...

Aggregate demand is the total demand for goods and services, you have confused it with gross domestic product, but you are at least in the ballpark. You then attempt a round robin of clumsily asserting that all goods and services are demand and that this is driven by demand.

You have a reading comprehension problem. Reread what I posted. I said aggregate demand is the total demand for real goods and services, based on a given time period and price level, within the economy.

Here is a game that I play with my students;

Does the iPhone exist?

Why does it exist? In the misapplication of Keynesian theory that makes up the myth of demand side economics, the iPhone cannot exist. Why? Because there was no demand for a smart phone - none at all. In fact, the demand for smart phones was created 100% by the supply of the iPhone. Don't believe me? Go ask Hewlett-Packard, who had a smart phone (the iPaq) they couldn't give away.

Demand does not, and cannot drive an economy. Jean Baptiste Say best summed it up in Says law, "Supply gives rise to it's own demand."

Say’s Law, lol. Are we now resorting to defunct economic theories from the 19th century?

Ok, I’ll play…

Supply doesn’t create its own demand. This denies that there can ever be unemployment of overproduction. If a consumer saves more then firms will respond and create more investment goods to soak up the savings. There is a fluidity of resources among sectors in the economy. Workers are transferred from making smart phone to making investment goods.

JM Keynes demonstrated when people save they simply don’t spend. They send zero signals to firms about when they will spend down the road and what they plan on purchasing. This is called a market failure. Firms respond to increasing inventories and cut their output – due to the uncertainty.

This departure from the orthodox/neoclassical approach came about when markets failed to correct the increasingly absurd levels of unemployment in the 1930s. The whole debate in the following years revolved around involuntary unemployment. The country’s experience in the 1930s made us realize that Say’s Law – the macroeconomic component of the neoclassical system - simply doesn’t hold any weight from a practical standpoint, in terms of individual behavior.

Even after all of the historical failures, neoclassical economists still continue to peddle the bullshit that unemployment is voluntary and Say’s Law is still applicable. JM Keynes, like Kalecki and Marx, refused to buy into the orthodox/neoclassical approach and refuted the very foundation of Say’s Law.

Are you on drugs?

Or are you just so desperate to redeem yourself that you fly off to wild prevarication?

We cannot use Walrasian analysis when dealing with the labor market, as if we’re dealing with the market for apples or peaches. Sorry, it’s not this alleged inflexibility of the labor market that’s the cause of our all economic woes.

Wage flexibility only makes a bad situation way worse. Any decline in nominal wages would inevitably lead to deflation, thus resulting in decreasing prices and aggregate demand (decreasing consumption and investment).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Even after all of the historical failures, neoclassical economists still continue to peddle the bullshit that unemployment is voluntary

it is of course in a free market where supply equals demand. Did you every wonder why there are more jobs in, say, China than the USA. Or why there are fewer in RI than CA. Did you ever wonder why the supply of apples in a supermarket always seem to match the demand?

Did you ever wonder what would have happened to economic growth 3000 years ago if policy was to stimulate demand for ceramic bowls rather than to stimulate supply of new inventions??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We cannot use Walrasian analysis when dealing with the labor market, as if we’re dealing with the market for apples or peaches

of course if liberals had their way the only free market would be in apples while every other industry would be deemed special and therefore subject to soviet special management.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A Set-Back for Socialists!!!



"Washington DC Mayor Vincent Gray faced a tough choice. Should he sign a living-wage bill that would make him the darling of progressives and unions in the nation’s capital, or should he veto it and cling to the opportunities for job creation in DC? The answer may well surprise readers:

District Mayor Vincent C. Gray vetoed legislation Thursday that would force the city’s largest retailers to pay a super-minimum wage to their workers, ending two months of uncertainty over the controversial bill’s fate and setting up a decisive override vote at the D.C. Council as early as Tuesday.

The debate over the bill, the Large Retailer Accountability Act, has polarized local leaders while garnering national attention and putting focus on the low wages many retail chains pay their workers.


.... squarely aimed at Walmart, long a target of both progressives and unions for their low labor compensation.

.... the bill is a “job-killer,” citing threats from Wal-Mart and other retailers that they will not locate to the city if the bill becomes law.

.... it would do nothing but hinder our ability to create jobs, drive away retailers, and set us back on the path to prosperity for all,” he said.


Mayor Gray has chosen jobs, economic development and common sense over special interests – and that’s good news for D.C. residents."
DC mayor vetoes living-wage bill « Hot Air



Now for Obama and ObamaCare......